<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (4) TMI 1476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467831</link>
    <description>A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be formally amended to cure a curable defect in pleadings, including by elaborating averments on vicarious liability of partners, where the firm and partners are already impleaded and the amendment does not alter the core prosecution. The court found that the proposed change only clarified existing allegations about responsibility for conduct of business, and did not introduce a new case. It also held that no real prejudice was shown to the accused, since the essential allegations and available defences remained unchanged. The challenge to the amendment order therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 11:11:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1476 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467831</link>
      <description>A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be formally amended to cure a curable defect in pleadings, including by elaborating averments on vicarious liability of partners, where the firm and partners are already impleaded and the amendment does not alter the core prosecution. The court found that the proposed change only clarified existing allegations about responsibility for conduct of business, and did not introduce a new case. It also held that no real prejudice was shown to the accused, since the essential allegations and available defences remained unchanged. The challenge to the amendment order therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>